One thousandth of a second is, as you can imagine, imperceivable to the human eye. As is two or three, or four thousandths. But one is, by all accounts, a measure of time that’s beyond the imagination of anyone who doesn’t work for NASA.
That said, 1/1000th of a second was exactly the amount of time it took to disqualify Devon Allen in the finals of the 110 meter high hurdles at this week’s World Track and Field Championships. Allen, who had the world’s leading time heading into the Championships, was removed for a false start because his reaction time to the starting gun was exactly 1/1000th of a second faster than the allowable limit – which is 1/10th of a second. That’s calculated by sensors on the starting blocks used by all sprinters 400 meters and below. So if you start moving 99/1000th of a second after the gun, still after the gun, you are out of the race. No second chance, no adjudication, you’re done. In this case, in one of track and field’s most public and important events. This would be like kicking Tom Brady out of the Super Bowl after the national anthem. It changes everything.
Allen wasn’t the only athlete DQ’d for an ever so slightly too quick start, even if he was the most prominent. NCAA champion Julien Alfred and Tynia Gaither of the Bahamas were both kicked out of the semis of the 100 for five and seven 1000ths, respectively. Alfred was a medal contender, although we’ll never know. But none stung as hard as Allen, a former Oregon Duck track and football athlete running in front of his home crowd. This has become the larger narrative of these World Championships, the first time held on American soil. Not the American sweep of the men’s 100, or the insane lean to the finish in the women’s 10,000. But whether we’re allowing computers to unfairly remove star athletes from championship events.
Not to throw the computers under the bus, these rules were created based on historic scientific evaluation of what the human body should be able to do. Meaning, at some point, people in track and field decided no one should be able to react faster than 1/10 of a second. Lacking a degree in physiology, I can’t say whether that’s true or not. At least right now, a lot of people suggest it isn’t, particularly given the ongoing Darwinian nature of athletic accomplishment. And they certainly don’t want that calculus to be the reason why we can’t watch the world’s greatest track athletes actually compete. On top of that, there’s considerable debate about the accuracy of the current computers compared to ones used in prior championships – like the last Olympics, where average measured start times may have been just a hair slower, which could be the difference between a life altering gold medal and watching the race on a monitor in the locker room.
There are some simple questions, at least relatively speaking, and some far more complex ones. For example, it could be relatively simple to add one false start before a disqualification, even though that opens up a whole new pandora’s box of fair competition. It’s also probably somewhat simple to figure out if there’s a better mousetrap to measure start times – either make it flawlessly accurate or build in some margin for error. Those are somewhat logistical questions that can be worked out by rules committees and data scientists – and I know that’s much easier said than done. But if we can put someone on the moon, I think we can make a starting block with a better sensor.
More difficult are questions about the nature of sport, particularly those that measure the contours of human performance. For example, can we categorically say that an athlete might do something we once assumed impossible? Like the four-minute mile used to be. And to what extent should technology be the arbiter of fair sport? I’ve long advocated for more tech in sports officiating, like calling tennis balls in or out or developing an electronic strike zone in baseball. But what happens when we doubt the technology? Is there a human override? Or are we simply servants of our new digital officiating overlords?
Should Devon Allen have been allowed to race in the 110 meter high hurdle finals at the World Championships even after he was 1/1000th of a second too fast? Our eyes, and most people in Oregon, would say yes.
Keith Strudler is the director of the School of Communication and Media at Montclair State University. You can follow him on twitter at @KeithStrudler
The views expressed by commentators are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of this station or its management.